IMPORTANT POINT
Default bail – Any direction to extend period for filing of charge-sheet encroaches upon personal liberty of an individual arrested in connection with a cognizable offence and any such direction must be preceded by due application of mind and by recording justifiable reasons.

ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from the order dated 21st February, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Criminal M.P. No. 742 of 2024, whereby the petition preferred by the appellant, challenging the order dated 2nd February, 2024 rendered by the learned AJC XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi²[Hereinafter, referred to as “Special Judge” or “trial Court”.], extending the time period for submission of chargesheet, was dismissed. While dismissing the said petition, the High Court observed that since the chargesheet had already been filed within the extended period and hence, the petition for default bail had lost its efficacy.

BRIEF FACTS

4. The brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

5. The appellant was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR No. 13 of 2023 dated 7th November, 2023 registered at Police Station ATS, Ranchi for the offences punishable under Sections 124A, 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³[Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”.] and Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967⁴[Hereinafter, referred to as “UAPA”.].

6. The appellant claims that he was illegally detained on 4th November, 2023, i.e., even before the registration of the FIR which came to be registered on 7th November, 2023. The appellant was formally shown arrested in documents on the very same day. On 8th November, 2023, the appellant was remanded to judicial custody. The orders of remand were periodically extended and by order dated 18th January, 2024, the period of remand was extended till 5th February, 2024. The period of 90 days as prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁵[Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.], was coming to an end on 5th February, 2024.

7. While the appellant was in judicial custody, the Investigating Officer moved an application dated 2nd February, 2024 before the learned Special Judge seeking an extension of 30 days to complete the investigation, which was allowed on the very same day and the time for filing the chargesheet was extended by a further period of 25 days from the date of completion of 90 days of custody as provided under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It is the specific case of the appellant that all these actions were taken behind his back and without any intimation to him as he was in judicial custody.

8. The statutory period of 90 days expired on 5th February, 2024, without the chargesheet being filed. On that date, the appellant was produced before the learned Special Judge via video conferencing, and his judicial custody was further extended by 14 days.

9. Claiming to be completely unaware of the proceedings dated 2nd February, 2024, wherein the period for completion of investigation was extended, the appellant moved an application on 8th February, 2024 seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Notice on the said application was issued to the Public Prosecutor and a reply was sought.

10. On 20th February, 2024, the learned Special Judge intimated the appellant of the order dated 2nd February, 2024, whereby the time for completion of the investigation had been extended and with reference thereto, the prayer for de